Open Letter to The Dimond Brothers

[estesbob]

1.So, I would say: “We ARE in the Supreme Deception.”
That’s a valid opinion.
However, IF we are in the Supreme Deception & Intro of the Antichrist -ISM, it certainly cannot be the SEDE’s or the hardcore Traditionalists, because they amount to less than 2% of the believers who identify as catholics. That is the Opposite of Supreme.
Supreme must take in the vast majoity as the CCC Par’s. indicate. I need not tell you who that would be, IF we are in the Supreme Deception. And, the CCC says it MUST COME. So it’s not IF but WHEN.

The best you can say is NOT NOW.

But if we are not in the Supreme Deception(whatever that is) and the current Pope is valid where does that leave you?

 

[TNT]

But if we are not in the Supreme Deception(whatever that is) and the current Pope is valid where does that leave you?

I guess, Same place it leaves you if we are.
I stick to the PERENNIAL Apostolic tradition in either case.
That’s my TouchStone. So I can’t be too far gone.
However, I’m Not in the Majority, IF we are.
And “whatever that is” is pretty clear in your own CCC, if you want to read it.
Or is that one of those pooh pooh’s we need not concern ourselves with?
Of course the whole foundation of a deception is to conceal its detection.

 

[estesbob]

I guess, Same place it leaves you if we are.
However, I’m Not in the Majority, IF we are.
And “whatever that is” is pretty clear in your own CCC, if you want to read it.
Or is that one of those pooh pooh’s we need not concern ourselves with?
Of course the whole foundation of a deception is to conceal its detection.

Actually I dont see where the Cathecism says what you claim at all. Kinda like when you argue with a Evangelical Protestant-one has to accept their personal interpreation of everything or the debate stops. And the the fact you are not in the majority means absolutely nothing-other than you feel you beleive you have a “special” insight that is superior to that of a billion other Catholics.

 

[TNT]

Actually I dont see where the Cathecism says what you claim at all. Kinda like when you argue with a Evangelical Protestant-one has to accept their personal interpreation of everything or the debate stops. And the the fact you are not in the majority means absolutely nothing-other than you feel you beleive you have a “special” insight that is superior to that of a billion other Catholics.

Have it your way. Your post seems to have a snot running down it…aka let’s attack the person, forget the argument.
In the meantime, if you’d ever like to offer your’s or anyone else’s alternative Real interpretation, I’d look forward to it.
Actually, there is very little interpretation required. The par’s. are pretty much an interpretation in themselves, of the last times.

I’m not forcing this on anyone, and do not think less of anyone who disagrees.
The point I AM making is that Golle’s insistence that we have popes at all times and no absence is not a requirement for the existence of the Catholic Church, nor the fact that there are no cardinals to elect one.
That is what his whole position stands on…or falls.

 

[estesbob]

Have it your way. Your post seems to have a snot running on it.
In the meantime, if you’d ever like to offer your’s or anyone else’s alternative Real interpretation, I’d look forward to it.
Actually, there is very little interpretation required. The par’s. are pretty much an interpretation in themselves, of the last times.

I’m not forcing this on anyone, and do not think less of anyone who disagrees.
The point I AM making is that Golle’s insistence that we have popes at all times and no absence is not a requirement for the existence of the Catholic Church, nor the fact that there are no cardinals to elect one.
hat is what his whole position stands on…or falls.

IBefore we start dicussing what the cathecism says do you accept everything in it as true?

 

[TNT]

IBefore we start dicussing what the cathecism says do you accept everything in it as true?

Again, an essential part of a deception, ESSENTIAL, is to have enough truth to camouflage the poison.
So, IF we are in the Supreme Deception, then even the CCC is not to be trusted where it collides with the PERENNIAL teaching of the Catholic Church.
I could not find any such collision in Par’s. 675, 677.
Now, if you have no take on those CCC par’s. that you feel are worthy of consideration, I understand, otherwise, let’s see it.
I don’t normally respond to answers that are nothing but questions.
You’ve had your allotment.

 

[estesbob]

Again, an essential part of a deception, ESSENTIAL, is to have enough truth to camouflage the poison.
So, IF we are in the Supreme Deception, then even the CCC is not to be trusted where it collides with the PERENNIAL teaching of the Catholic Church.
I could not find any such collision in Par’s. 675, 677.
Now, if you have no take on those CCC par’s. that you feel are worthy of consideration, I understand, otherwise, let’s see it.
I don’t normally respond to answers that are nothing but questions.
You’ve had your allotment.

So you want to prove your point by giving us your personal interpretation n of what a book you dont beleive in says? Go Figure.

 

[Victory5]

TNT I think you are missing my point so allow me to make this very clear. The Pope has supreme authority even in ecclesiastical law. When a Pope makes a Church law only him or a successor can change that law. THE CHURCH LAW FOR OVER 500 YEARS HAS BEEN THAT THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS ELECTS THE POPE. For the sedevacantist, you have an unprecidented situation where all the electors(Cardinals) have died and no Pope to change Church law to elect another Pope. PROBLEM!!! You can have all the theories you want about how a Pope will be elected. Guees what??? The sedevacantist down the road may have a different theory. THAT SOUNDS MORE LIKE PROTESTANISM THAN CATHOLISCISM.

Vatican I’s teaching, that Peter will have successor in perpetuity, only makes sense if we have a clear way to know who the successor is. The sedevacantist has no idea. And can never know.

also TNT no one has ever asserted that Vatican I’s teaching means that Peter will have successors at every point in time. Obviously (I even mention this in the debate) we all know the seat is vacant in between elections.

 

[TNT]

So you want to prove your point by giving us your personal interpretation n of what a book you dont beleive in says? Go Figure.

Somehow I KNEW you had no worthy interpretaion of the CCC Par’s. 675, 677. That’s what all the deflection was about.
Off with you.

 

[estesbob]

Somehow I KNEW you had no worthy interpretaion of the CCC Par’s. 675, 677. That’s what all the deflection was about.
Off with you.

What you have tried to do is akin to another thread where a pagan presumed to interpret Scripture for us. You believe the cathecism is in error but want to use your own personal interpration of it to prove your point. You cant have it both ways. You cant pick and choose what sections you want to twist into supporting your views and ignore the rest as in error.

Yoiu have offered no evidence whatsoever thet the Current Popes are invalid other than you being in a snit becuase you didnt like the last Council.

 

[TNT]

What you have tried to do is akin to another thread where a pagan presumed to interpret Scripture for us. You believe the cathecism is in error but want to use your own personal interpration of it to prove your point. You cant have it both ways. You cant pick and choose what sections you want to twist into supporting your views and ignore the rest as in error.

Yoiu have offered no evidence whatsoever thet the Current Popes are invalid other than you being in a snit becuase you didnt like the last Council.

How many personal hits to deflect are you up to? 3, 4, 5?
One more n yur on the ignore list.

 

[estesbob]

How many personal hits to deflect are you up to? 3, 4, 5?
One more n yur on the ignore list.

Ill ask one more time. Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that we dont need valid popes other than you rpersnal interpretation of a book you believe is in error?

 

[cam100]

TNT, in post #3, I requested you to explain how the Catechism paragraphs 675 & 677 imply that there will be no pope at the time of the antichrist. You’ve cited these paragraphs multiple times, but haven’t explained how you reached your conclusions from those paragraphs. The paragraphs speak of a supreme religious deception, but I can’t find anything in there that implies that the papacy will be interrupted for an extended period of time.

 

[TNT]

TNT I think you are missing my point so allow me to make this very clear. The …When a Pope makes a Church law only him or a successor can change that law. …

I got it and I get it.
I’m pointing out as follows:

1. It’s just common jurisprudence that a law is suspended if it is impossible to accomplish.
2. Canon Law from all versions agree. To wit:
   canon 1323:4° : “No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: 4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls.”

For the sedevacantist, you have an unprecidented situation where all the electors(Cardinals) have died…

I early on mentioned that “no precedent” is irrelevant, and gave a host of examples of unprecedented events. It adds nothing to your position to keep insisting on it.

and no Pope to change Church law to elect another Pope. PROBLEM!!!

See Canon Law Above… This is not a problem, and as I repeatedly pointed out way up there, is also irrelevent IF CCC 675, 677 is where we are today. Get it?
I even stated that "That’s my point."
Repeat: The end times that MUST arrive will be UNPRECEDENTED, and SUPREME in its devestation of the Church.

You can have all the theories you want about how a Pope will be elected. Guees what??? The sedevacantist down the road may have a different theory. THAT SOUNDS MORE LIKE PROTESTANISM THAN CATHOLICISM.

I told you over & over, I have no necessary “theories” about a future pope’s election. It is also irrelevent IF CCC 675, 677 is where we are today. IF CCC 675, 677 is where we are today. IF CCC 675, 677 is where we are today. Get it?

Vatican I’s teaching, that Peter will have successor in perpetuity, only makes sense if we have a clear way to know who the successor is. The sedevacantist has no idea. And can never know.

Also irrelevent for the same reason as above.

also TNT no one has ever asserted that Vatican I’s teaching means that Peter will have successors at every point in time. Obviously (I even mention this in the debate) we all know the seat is vacant in between elections.

Good, we won’t go there again. Progress.

Try this:
Remove my proposal by good logic or Law, Divine or otherwise, that it is POSSIBLE that CCC 675, 677 is where we are today.
If it is possible, then all this going on about who will elect, how will we know, is irrelevent.
That is:

1. The Supreme Deception is under way.
2. The antichrist - ISM is in ascendency.
3. The Catholic Church is in Descent.
4. It is entering Our Lord’s " passion & DEATH."
5. It will " not ascend" again until the Coming of Our Savior, which time no one knows.

That’s not so hard, estesbob’s empty objections notwithstanding. But at least he’s willing to recognize the point I am making.

 

[estesbob]

IGood, we won’t go there again. Progress.

Try this:
Remove my proposal by good logic or Law, Divine or otherwise, that it is POSSIBLE that CCC 675, 677 is where we are today.
If it is possible, then all this going on about who will elect, how will we know, is irrelevent.
That is:

1. The Supreme Deception is under way.
2. The antichrist - ISM is in ascendency.
3. The Catholic Church is in Descent.
4. It is entering Our Lord’s " passion & DEATH."
5. It will " not ascend" again until the Coming of Our Savior, which time no one knows.

That’s not so hard, estesbob’s empty objections notwithstanding.

Whats hard is your interpreting a book you say is in error. Even if we accept your interpetation of 675, 677 it is irelevant since you say the cathecsim is in error. Either the Cathecism is correct or it is not. You cant pick, choose and twist what portions you deem to accept.

 

[TNT]

Whats hard is your interpreting a book you say is in error. Even if we accept your interpetation of 675, 677 it is irelevant since you say the cathecsim is in error. Either the Cathecism is correct or it is not. You cant pick, choose and twist what portions you deem to accept.

Faulty logic, estesbob.
YOU are the one who holds par. 675, 677 to be TRUE.
All I am doing is saying that IF it is true as YOU believe, then YOU have to deal with.
The fact that I believe it as well is of no import whatsoever.
YOU have to deal with it, BECAUSE it is YOUR belief.
It was put there by JPII as a sure norm of belief & conduct.

 

[Victory5]

NICE TRY AGAIN TNT --BUT YOU STILL HAVENT DEALT WITH THE FACT: That Vatican I said thet Peter will have successors in perpetuity—And this teaching makes no sense if the faithful dont have a process to elect a POPE----UNLESS you can come up witha solution you are in a bad situation. IF THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW A POPE IS ELECTED THEN "how can Peter have successors in perpetuity?

 

[TNT]

NICE TRY AGAIN TNT --BUT YOU STILL HAVENT DEALT WITH THE FACT: That Vatican I said thet Peter will have successors in perpetuity—And this teaching makes no sense if the faithful dont have a process to elect a POPE----UNLESS you can come up witha solution you are in a bad situation. IF THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW A POPE IS ELECTED THEN "how can Peter have successors in perpetuity?

You will not or cannot address the point I brought up contained in your very own Catechism.
So, I give up.
And yes, it profoundly affects your issues. I even stated HOW. To wit:
If my proposal is possible AND in effect today, then:
THERE WILL BE NO NEXT ELECTION. PERIOD, END OF SENTENCE. CASE CLOSED.

 

[estesbob]

Faulty logic, estesbob.
YOU are the one who holds par. 675, 677 to be TRUE.
All I am doing is saying that IF it is true as YOU believe, then YOU have to deal with.
The fact that I believe it as well is of no import whatsoever.
YOU have to deal with it, BECAUSE it is YOUR belief.
It was put there by JPII as a sure norm of belief & conduct.

Only if one accepts your personal interpretion. I dont read it the way you do and neither does anyone else in this thread. but since you believe the book is in error anyway it is useless to argue with you what the right interpretation is. Either you accept it as the truth or you dont. if you dont you shouldnt try and base profound theological theories on it.

 

[TNT]

Only if one accepts your personal interpretion. I dont read it the way you do and neither does anyone else in this thread. but since you believe the book is in error anyway it is useless to argue with you what the right interpretation is. Either you accept it as the truth or you dont. if you dont you shouldnt try and base profound theological theories on it.

Round and round, anything but showing my error in interpretation & YOU providing the correct one from the very CCC you profess to believe. If you believe it, then why do you deny anyone the true interpretion? Makes no sense.

I have not argued the “right interpretation” for the very reason, you or anyone else has yet to offer one, for heaven’s sake!
And I may not argue it if it’s a good one. I may just accept you have as valid an opinion as I do…

I dont read it the way you do and neither does anyone else in this thread.

No one cares a hoot that you don’t read it that way, they want to know the correct way that you DO read it.
It’s not “anyone else in this thread.”.
It’s anyone reading the thread. And how do you know this?